W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Suggestion: 'rel="unrelated"'

From: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 02:47:46 +1100
Message-Id: <7420CB97-739F-11D9-94D4-000D9358C980@w3.org>
Cc: kmarks@technorati.com, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, shellen@google.com, www-html@w3.org, tantek@technorati.com
To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>


On 29 Jan 2005, at 20:05, Karl Dubost wrote:

> Le 22 janv. 2005, à 16:52, Dan Brickley a écrit :
>> I've been following the threads in
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2005Jan/
>> about the
>> http://www.google.com/googleblog/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html
>> proposal, and the draft definition at
>> http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/RelNoFollow
> And I have just finished to read the whole thread…
> so far, I have one problem with rel="nofollow", they encourage all 
> publishing tools to put automatically "nofollow" to all links coming 
> from external contributions and that is just plain wrong without 
> giving the possibility to the user to change the nature of the rel. 
> The problem is often the same, imposing a choice to the user without 
> giving the possibility to deactivate it.
> So I'm interested to know if publishing tools implement 
> rel="nofollow", what do they implement if on my weblog (by an 
> editorial choice), I want to say: "This link is worthwhile and should 
> be followed."

I expect tools will eventually provide you with the ability to do this.

If you know the comment is spam then you should delete it (no need for
nofollow). If you know the comment is ham then you shouldn't mark
its links with nofollow. It's the range in between (where you are not 
sure of spam or ham status) that should default to nofollow. And yes, 
should be able to change the state.

> As a second thing, I can't wait the abuse made by spammers of this new 
> attribute. After the "meta name" indexing which has been abused, and 
> then not indexed by some search engines, I'm pretty sure there will be 
> surprises with the rel="nofollow".

It may be the case that this can be abused, but I don't see the harm
in trying it out. It's a low-cost approach that may reduce the impact,
if not the amount, of comment spam on the Web. If it is abused, then you
can stop using it. Remember that spiders can stop following links
at any time on a page, so all nofollow does is give them a hint. Taking
away the hint doesn't mean the link *will* be spidered.

Received on Monday, 31 January 2005 15:47:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 30 April 2020 16:20:55 UTC